PREVENTION OF FOREST DEVASTATION 327 



We must secure Federal legislation to stop destruction and perhaps 

 allow the States to enforce it with inspection by federal officers, such 

 as is now secured under the Weeks law, with the subsidized fire pro- 

 tection; but to my mind the safest, surest, fairest, and most practical 

 means of securing the results is to recognize that real forestry is not 

 profitable, and that, therefore, the private owner must be subsidized 

 in some way or other, for it is, of course, hopeless to imagine that all 

 forest land can be purchased by the public. Much of it must remain 

 in private hands, and foresters, recognizing this necessity, must plan 

 to secure forestry through the agencies of private owners. 



There are a number of points, in connection with this problem, about 

 which foresters and lumbermen disagree. I will comment briefly on 

 some of them. 



(1). Kind of Ownership.- — I believe that even more emphasis should 

 be placed on the necessity of large increases in public ownership. 



(2). Constitutionality. — It seems to me that the question as to 

 whether Federal legislation will be constitutional or not should, as Mr. 

 Woodruff argues, be left for the courts to decide after the legislation 

 is secured. 



(3). State or National Ownership. — There should be a national law 

 against forest destruction, enforced by State agencies, with inspection 

 by the Federal Government. I can not help but feel, as Mr. Pinchot 

 does, that "Under the plan for State control the public must attack 

 the lumber interests in the lumbering States, where they are strongest ; 

 and without the help from the deforested and treeless States, where 

 the sentiment for conservation is most alive. The lumber interests 

 would be fighting in their strongest trenches, the public from its weak- 

 est ground." With Federal legislation. State enforcement and Federal 

 inspection, destructive lumbering could be stopped, but since the nation 

 as a whole will benefit from forestry it seems to me that the Federal 

 Treasury should supply the subsidy to the private owners, which, to my 

 mind, is due him to pay for what he loses and for what the public 

 gains. If the problem is left to the States, I fear that very little would 

 be secured. There would be exceptions, of course, but I have in mind 

 what one of the Governors stated to a forester, who was planning a 

 campaign for forestry betterment. The forester was called into the 

 office of the chief executive. 



"You have a good position with congenial work and reasonable pay." 



"Yes, sir," replied the forester. 



